Waltzingmatilda57
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
July 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to John Dundee has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding John Dundee
editI do not see why family wishes should dictate Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has guidelines on how to format biographies (yes this is a biography, as it is an article about a person), which should be followed on all biography articles. In addition, you might want to read the policy on article ownership. Near-blanking the article with a message about the 'article being withdrawn' does not help the situation, and constitutes vandalism. I would suggest that you discuss your concerns on the article's talk page, so that your opinion can be clearly stated.
--Lusantian (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to John Dundee constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thanks. MattieTK 17:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't checked specific items, but "family wishes" are not a reliable source and are not sufficiently verifiable to influence a Wikipedia article. Please ensure that the biographical policies are being observed. If they are not, then the article can be adjusted accordingly. If you know the family, potentially the conflict of interest policy applies, and you should refrain from editing the article. However, you are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Dundee. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —EncMstr (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you think the article will be deleted? Is someone pursuing that?
- Just because U.S. spellings are sometimes used hardly makes the article inaccurate. What are the inaccuracies you mention? Let's correct them instead of corrupting the article. Note that you are way over the WP:3RR limit; policy is to block you, but I sympathize with your situation. —EncMstr (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just how well did you know this man and what gives you the right to edit this article.? Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've already pointed you at what gives the right authorizing me—and everyone else—to edit. For clarity, they are WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO. There are several others such as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
- Please list inaccuracies and truths on the talk:John Dundee talk page. I've made several attempts to find sources for the information in the article, but have found little to be online, which isn't surprising considering his time. —EncMstr (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- After about 30 minutes of searching, I found references which support most of the major claims. There are several incidental alleged facts which will be very difficult to find references (like sports and music), which I have tagged with "citation needed". Given how much I was able to source, it seems likely the rest of the article will stand. It would greatly help if you would explain what is not true. —EncMstr (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have his certificates, diplomas, publications etc and can back all the facts in my version of this article. You are merely searching the internet (obviously you have too much time on your hands) hoping to find reference to him. As previously stated his family did not start this entry, they do not want his details published on Wikipedia, we have emailed Wikipedia asking them to remove the complete article if they will not allow my (approved by family) article. One major issue is the use of the word Anaesthesiology (an American word) - he was an Anaesthetist (British). I don't care whether or not I am 'way over the 3RR policy' I believe in doing the right thing - you obviously don't and have no respect for the feelings of his family, perhaps now is the time to learn some. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your father is clearly a notable person, and therefore this entry will most likely remain. If you wish to help improve the article, you can suggest improvements at Talk:John Dundee. Lashing out at the people preventing you from trying to blanking an article you do not own is unhelpful. –xeno (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously you have not read the policies I've linked to for your benefit—several times. If you did, you'd realize that family wishes have no bearing on what appears on Wikipedia. Furthermore, conflict-of-interest policies prevent you from providing a version, or adding or subtracting substantial content. I say this as a Wikipedia editor, and an administrator (sysop) on the English Wikipedia. In fact, several administrators have looked at this issue and concur.
- I've asked you repeatedly for details about what is not true in the article. You don't answer, yet continue to assert that the "family's wishes" are not being honored. You have received many replies saying that isn't good enough. Your assertion obviously you have no respect for the feelings of his family could not be further from the truth. Adding reliable sources backing up facts honors the truth of the man, which, by all accounts was admirable and notable. It's extremely hard to understand why the family—and you—would not want that. I don't consider it a waste of time to determine whether defamation was present, or check whether a completely manufactured article appeared.
- You might consider the situation of biographies which document scandals, crimes, and other uncomfortable facts. The Wikipedia position is that reliable, fact-checked sources which support such facts mean they stay in the article. In the case of conflicting facts, usually it means that all substantial points-of-view are presented. That might not seem compassionate, but it's for the best. —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- My comment that you were active again was not meant to be insulting, it was meant to indicate that we might be able to engage you in reasonable discourse as to why your father's article cannot simply be blanked "per the family's wishes". If you want to see insulting, simply look at the comments you've been making about other editors, suggesting they lack respect, need to grow up, or have nothing better to do with their time. Please respect our rules regarding civility when writing to other editors. –xeno (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but your comment was insulting - still no respect from everyone else (who do NOT have the means to verify anything, because I have it). This is a fact - I have asked how I can verify who I am but no-one has replied - obviously they don't have the backup to support their changes, I have the items, but quite frankly I have better things to do with my time. If Wikipedia continue to publish articles against the wishes of the family then we will have to look at other ways to stop them. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize if it came across as an insult. However many people have suggested to you ways that you can assist in improving this article. Namely, by using the talk page. Click here: Talk:John Dundee. Click "new section". Type in the box exactly what you would like to see improved in the article. We'll do our best to implement your suggestions. However simply blanking the article is not an appropriate way to go about things. –xeno (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- sorry but family agreed, and I agreed to undertake the actual edit, the article I submitted on 16th July. They are not interested in any other version and that is why they now want it withdrawn. One small example, they find it insulting that he is referred to as Dundee - his name was John - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a list of biographies. Do you think in years to come that your relative would want to read something they did not agree on? As I have stated before I have the items to verify all of the facts in that article on 16th July, something your editors do not. Obviously no-one else is interested in who or what I am, they seem intent on their own little bit of power/editing glory. This is why we now want this withdrawn. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* I don't think you understand what it is we do here. We are an encyclopedia and encyclopedias include biographies. Wikipedia is not a memorial. –xeno (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh?? how sad and yet again insulting! How come the 'editors' (self appointed?) can insult people and not be reproached? This article was not written as a memorial, it is a factual summary of his life written by his family, with the help and support of colleagues, and all facts in it can be verified through me - not by some 'editor' searching the internet. Your interpretation of the fact that it is a memorial is completely incorrect. Wikipedia does not seem to support the submission of facts but supports people on some sort of power/glory trip by editing articles when they are not in possession of the facts. I in the meantime have a life to get on with Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- It seems I'm not making myself clear, so I'll stop posting to your talk page. Please see Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources which is the our policy for what qualifies as an appropriate source for information in an encyclopedia article. –xeno (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:OWN: 'If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.'
- You cannot expect other editors (by the way, an editor is anyone who edits any page, ever) to leave your page alone because 'the family wants it that way'. I am washing my hands of this discussion, as you seem to be disinterested in anything but the preservation of your article as you wrote it. --Lusantian (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from John Dundee. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Washburnmav (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to John Dundee. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I AM his daughter - tell me how I can prove it? I have his original certificates etc. and a room full of his things - I am more qualified than anyone else to edit this article. I don't know or care what "nowiki" tags or any of your other jargon is either publish this correctly or get it removed from Wikipedia, which is his family's wish. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please see my instructions at the very bottom of your talk page on how to suggest the improvements you would like to see made to the article and people who are familiar with wiki-code will implement them. –xeno (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- the preference is that this is withdrawn from Wikipedia - the family did not publish it or ever want it published. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not how things are done around here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and your father was a notable individual, worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, you are free to nominate the article for deletion if you disagree. –xeno (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- don't worry when I have more time I will be doing this - Wikipedia have already been contacted about this - still awaiting a response but as the only person who can verify the facts, I find it strange that any tom, dick or harry can amend this article. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia's motto is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.. I'm sorry that you aren't satisfied with your father's article. best regards, –xeno (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have just summed up exactly why his family want this article withdrawn - they do not want any tom, dick and probably harry, who did not know his, editing the facts which have been supplied by them and which can be verified through me. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- It might be best if they didn't visit Wikipedia if they disagree with how it is created. Since I don't seem to be able to explain how best you can help us improve the article, I'll stop posting to your talk page. –xeno (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have concerns about the factuality of an article, you can improve it, or make your concerns known on the article talk page which is found here: Talk:John Dundee. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles cannot be "withdrawn" by someone's family. Also, you have violated three-revert rule policy. Please review it. –xeno (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editPlease be aware that until you receive a positive response from Wikipedia your edits are counting as vandalism and you are breaking established reverting rules that could lead to your expulsion from the project. This would not stand well with your request. I suggest you accept your current situation and do not attempt to find methods around the block that currently stands. MattieTK 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am his daughter, I have his certificates, diplomas, publications, etc. & even his OBE. This are facts, what you are contributing is speculative. I therefore think I am more than qualified to edit this article Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You claim to have information on this person, but without a reliable, 3rd-party source, you cannot prove that your information is factual. Unfortunately, we can't just 'take your word for it' that the information you're providing is accurate. Also, instead of making vague comments like 'what you are contributing is speculative', please provide specific examples of inaccurate material so the problem can be fixed. --Lusantian (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- How would you like me to prove who I am? Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is not who you are, but whether the information you supplied is factual. You could still be his daughter, and yet make up an article full of inaccurate facts (not saying you did this!).
- Another issue with the article as you wrote it is the use of peacock words. I would like to call your attention to this revision. Almost all of the red words/phrases in the green column are peacock words, and unencyclopedic. I mean no disrespect to your father or your family, and I would guess that no one else here does either. --Lusantian (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked several times how I can verify who I am and prove the facts - Yes I do have his certificates etc , and while you state that you are not saying that I made up an article of inaccurate facts, this very suggestion is insulting in the extreme. All the information I supplied is factual, none of it was made up - something other editors seem to ignore when deleting/adding items - everyone else seems to be able to edit this article and leave out some of the facts, yet the person who holds all the facts has their edits undone every time - very strange. This is one of the reasons why the family want it withdrawn. Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what is missing from the current article? –xeno (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How to use a talk page
editI noticed from your comments at User talk:Fieldday-sunday that you seem to be confused as to how to properly use a talk page. When you visit Talk:John Dundee, you will see a tab at the top of the screen called "new section". You can click this button, add a subject line, and type what you would like to see changed about the article. I hope this helps. –xeno (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)